Comments

Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.

Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.

aussiedean: Hi all my first post here on the forums and just to let you all know I have a very basic knowledge of Photography at this point and was just interested to see if anyone has come across a problem mentioned here:

So there's a little bit of bitching from the PC community about an article praising an Apple product. It's all good.

Despite being a long term Apple user I welcome these comments, bitchy tho they may be. I think it's really cool their PCs stayed running long enough to write and post a whole comment. PCs have clearly come a long way.

Fujian - One who promotes mythical juxtapositions of intent and implementation.

Examples:

It can't AF : It's for expert photographers onlyIt's slow to MF : It's for contemplative photographers onlyIt can't render fine detail : Those details weren't meant to be seenAF fix held back two years to promote new model sales : Great customer serviceDefective aperture blades : Great customer service

The problem with subscription pricing is it exploits people whose circumstances change, essentially requiring an action on users part to stop paying.

When mother-in-law had her second stroke and went into a care home, it took me months to get her Sky TV subscription service cancelled (their bureaucracy), during which time they carried on collecting the subscriptions.

Or my Safari books online subscription. When I got my iPad, I used SBO less and less and eventually a year had gone by without me actually using it. $200 for nothing. Yes, it was my 'fault' but the model exploits it for financial gain.

All Adobe have to do to get me on board is to make it fair (and secure). The software has to dial home to check for entitlement/updates, so they know when you're still using it.

If they made it their policy to only bill for the months you actually use the software, this would set a precedent for treating customers with respect, not exploiting their circumstances.

Remember Guys, the scores and awards are just DPR's own take on how it all comes together.

The real gem in these reviews is the effort DPR put into making it, and time spent documenting it in all those pages before the conclusions.

I remember the Ricoh GXR review, where it got a shockingly low score (bad DPR)

I had the GXR/A33 APS-C and it was fantastic. Great IQ, a belter of a lens, superb ergonomics with the twin control dial and grip. It was a great camera hidden inside an unusual and for some, flawed, concept.

The conclusions and scores were as much a reflection of DPR's take on the concept and what they chose to treat as its peers. But behind the scores it was all still there, in the detail of the review. Great IQ, great ergonomics and so on.

And so it is with this GX7 (which has hardly been given a bad score).

There's plenty in the review to help you reach your own conclusions. So just be happy all this work has been done for you, look at the detail and take what you need.

When I paint with light, I paint an object. So the object is in the scene, and during the long exposure I paint it with light from a flashlight. The object being painted is in the scene, the flashlight isn't.

But here it looks like the flashlight itself is the subject. I'm guessing he wore a dark outfit, went into the scene, drew the shapes in the air and then left the scene.

The mind boggles at how much effort this must have taken. Bet he got a lot of out-takes too!

Lens corrections - Aperture does this automatically when correction data is supplied in the raw by the cameras. Eg: M4/3, Sony RX100, many premium compacts. The practice seems to be very slowly being adopted by others too. Certainly beats all the manual testing DXO, Adobe, etc have to do to build profiles. Perhaps one day all raws will carry the correction parameters and manual profiles will be a thing of the past. If Apple sees it the same way, I doubt they'll spend time investing in the past.

Shared Layers - would require enormous cooperation between the app makers (Apple, Adobe, DXO, etc) and the filter makers. No app currently does this. If you build it they will come?

Please, do feel free to go, but how about keeping the noise down as you leave, no need to be loutish about it!

And no need to justify your decision to us, if Aperture doesn't do what you want, then perhaps it's your time to fly.

But it is a bit strange, after all, the product still does all the great things it did when you bought it. It's had loads of new features added for free. It gets regular bug fixes as bugs get reported and squished. And the raw camera updates continue to flow, and not rushed out but done to the high standard users have come to expect, with support for maker notes and camera features not supported by certain other brands.

Sure you might want some new features, but which? The internet shows there is far from a consensus. The plug-in architecture gets around this, giving far more variety than Apple could justify developing.

Here's a free tip. Put your money into good lenses, not more software, and you won't need half the features you think you need.

This isn't a case of jumping on the Hassy trend, Ricoh has a long history of producing special editions of their GRs using alternative finishes, some of them truly truly ghastly.

But it's just an extra option to their regular stuff, and they've been doing it so long they must have some sort fan-base for the practice.

I suspect many of you are only just noticing Ricoh since the APS-C GR (or perhaps the Pentax take-over). They march to their own drum, and have a bit of a wacky side to them, but they make some great cameras.

Najinsky: It was needed, having the better sensor in the X100S made the Xp/e seem already out of date.

Shame they didn't add a small hump and a centrally mounted finder (seriously!). Side finders become less useful with longer zooms where you need to look up from the camera to locate your subject.

With all the other features and the lens map, it would have been a contender for me. But I'm tired of compromises, what I have (OM-D) is really good, so manufacturers are going to have to work a bit harder to make me switch.

Note, I have no issue with side-finders for up to around 100mm. But beyond 200, I really want it centred over the lens.

@CFynn

I've seen, but none-the-less, it makes it appeal much more to me than the NEX 6 or 7 did.

The problem with with the A7 is likely to be lens sizes for a full kit. This is the area where I think Fuji have done a great job, a decent sized APS-C sensor but without the lenses getting too big/heavy/expensive.

It's not pressing anyway. I'm really happy with the my kit based around an OM-D, it covers a good 85+% of my requirements and the weight/size benefits while travelling have made a huge difference to where I take my kit.

But I've made no secret that my switch from FF to OM-D was that for me it had now passed a threshold where IQ was good enough, enough of the time.

So if a system came along along with markedly better IQ, the lens range, body ergonomics for me, with most of the size/weight benefits, then it's fair to say it would get my serious attention.

For me, this style Fuji body doesn't do it, but it will still be good to see how X-Trans processing has moved forward.